Prudentia

  1. Letdown Intuitively, we all recognize that to ascribe to a closed metaphysical system is to accept that some agent—some thinker, some architect—has claimed the authority to describe the entire universe in principle. Every such system carries this hidden assertion: that the conceptual resources chosen by its author are not only adequate for the world, but adequate for all possible worlds, all possible questions, all possible futures of inquiry. This is the point at which my disappointment begins. Metaphysics, at its best, is the attempt to understand what there is and how it hangs together. It is a human activity born of curiosity, wonder, and the desire for orientation. But again and again, metaphysics has drifted toward totality: toward the dream of a final account, a complete structure, a theory that leaves nothing outside its frame. The ambition is understandable; the confidence is not. This endnote is at last motivated by the tension between those two impulses—the legit...

In August 2000, I reviewed two books on genetics and biotechnology: The Biotech Century by Jeremy Rifkin and Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley . At the time, the Human Genome Project was nearing completion, CRISPR did not yet exist, and “biotech” still felt like a futuristic industry rather than a daily reality. A quarter century later, we can now evaluate these works not as speculation—but as forecasts. The result is fascinating: both authors were right in surprisingly deep ways, yet both also missed critical dynamics that define biotechnology today. 1. The Rise of Biotechnology: Rifkin Was Early—but Not Entirely Right Rifkin predicted that biotechnology would become the dominant economic force of the 21st century. Verdict: Partially correct. Biotech is undeniably central today: mRNA vaccines (e.g. COVID-19 response) Gene editing using CRISPR-Cas9 Synthetic biology startups Personalized medicine However, biotech did not replace the...

British science journalist Matt Ridley has written an unusual popular-scientific book: In 23 chapters, the autobiography of the human species is told - each of these chapters correspond with one of a human cell's 23 chromosome pairs. From each chromosome Ridley has picked one or a group of genes, which gave him the topics for the individual chapters.    Contents Overview Ridley starts with the origin of life and human genealogy, then ventures into the history of genetics as a branch of science. Many of the following chapters then deal with particular features caused by genes. Even though Ridley keeps repeating the phrase "Genes are not there to cause diseases", sometimes even in capital letters, diseases are also one of the topics of many chapters; he tells us about research on genetic causes of Alzheimer and Huntington's diseases, asthma and cholera, and so on. A chapter is also dedicated to eugenics, another on cure of illnesses by somatic and ger...

This is not a scientific book. It is not even popular-scientific. It has been written by an interested layman for interested laymen. It is, therefore, comparable to Bill Gates' "The Road Ahead". (Bill Gates is also little involved in computer science; he is good at discovering new business opportunities and organizing, though.) The only differences are: Rifkin does not claim to be visionary, and is critical. Moreover, the topic of course is not the data highway but the emerging biotechnology industry.     The Author Rifkin studied economy and is president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, D.C. He has raised his voice about several new technologies - this is not his first publication on genetics and biotech, either - and initiated debates by pointing out potential dangers. This is his fourteenth book. Contents The industrial era is about to end. Raw materials like oil have become scarce. In the new century, biotechnology will become th...

Preface I have been searching back and forth for a long time, trying out many partial approaches and incomplete answers. Each attempt illuminated something, but none of them fully resolved the problem. What follows is the first explanation that actually closes the issue. It is simple, structural, and does not depend on any special metaphysical assumptions. It shows, in a straightforward way, why no finite agent can ever achieve a complete and final account of all truths. Abstract This paper argues that no finite agent can ever achieve metaphysical closure — the idea that an agent’s reasons, concepts, and methods could cover the entire space of possible propositions. The core issue is structural: a finite agent’s justificatory resources are fixed and determinate, while the total space of propositions it faces is not. Because the agent cannot determine or survey the full range of possible propositions, it cannot know whether its resources cover that range. From this mismatch alone, w...